DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The chemical structure formulas in para. [0014], page 4-5, are not clearly legible.
The chemical structure formulas 1 through 17 in para. [0015] are illegible.
The chemical structure formulas in para. [0066] – [0070], page 23-24, are not clearly legible.
The chemical structure formulas 1 through 17 in para. [0071] are illegible.
The word binder is repeated unnecessarily in para. [0105].
The chemical structure formula in Table 1, para. [0114], page 36 is not clearly legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
JP 4713886 B2 cited on the IDS received on 02/19/2026 has not been considered, as an English-equivalent abstract has not been provided with the machine translation.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The chemical structure formulas in claim 8 are not clearly legible.
The chemical structure formulas 1 through 17 in claim 9 are illegible.
It appears that the incorrect character has been recited in the 2nd to last line of claim 8. “1” should be corrected to “l”.
Claim 9 refers to Formula 3 which is not present in claim 1, and seems to depend on claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Regarding claims 1 and 14, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In particular, the specification fails to enable the full scope of the claimed anode active material, a lithium metal oxide represented by Formula 1: Lix[NiyCoz-MnwM1v]O2 where M1 is on or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo; and x, y, z, w, and v satisfy 0.9≤x≤1.30, 0.6≤y≤1, 0≤z≤0.2, 0≤w≤0.2, and 0≤v≤0.1, respectively, provided that y+z+w+v=1. Therefore, as the specification fails to teach the subject matter of the claims, undue experimentation is necessary to practice the claimed invention. See MPEP 2164.01(a).
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence
to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether
any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content
of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (reversing the PTO's
determination that claims directed to methods for detection of hepatitis B surface antigens did not
satisfy the enablement requirement). In Wands, the court noted that there was no disagreement as to
the facts, but merely a disagreement as to the interpretation of the data and the conclusion to be made
from the facts. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-40, 8 USPQ2d at 1403-07. The Court held that the
specification was enabling with respect to the claims at issue and found that "there was considerable
direction and guidance" in the specification; there was "a high level of skill in the art at the time the
application was filed;" and "all of the methods needed to practice the invention were well known." 858
F.2d at 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1406. After considering all the factors related to the enablement issue, the
court concluded that "it would not require undue experimentation to obtain antibodies needed to
practice the claimed invention." Id., 8 USPQ2d at 1407.
The factors described above have been considered as follows:
(A) The breadth of the claims: It is not possible to determine whether the scope of the claimed active anode material is commensurate with the disclosure in the specification due to apparent inconsistencies in the specification. For example, para. [0006] of the present disclosure’s specification states that the invention provides an NCM-based anode active material having improved energy density. In contrast, para. [0028] – [0030] of the specification refers to an NCM-based cathode material and the mechanisms leading to a decrease in electrochemical properties and a technology for suppressing said mechanisms by coating the NCM-based cathode material which is known in the art and that the technology suffers from complexity and costliness. Meanwhile, para. [0031] states the need for an improvement in ways suppressing such aforementioned mechanisms leading to decreased electrochemical properties in NCM-based active materials. Para. [0032] goes on to state that the solution is to control the heat flow between an NCM-based anode active material and electrolyte composition. Para. [0091] – [0096] of the specification appear to describe a cathode composition commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims 11-12, i.e. a carbon-based cathode active material and a silicon-based cathode active material. Furthermore, para. [0123]-[0129] of the specification describes a test method of measuring the maximum temperature, reported in Table III, the battery exhibits thermal runaway which Applicant has defined in para. [0124]. However, para. [0123]-[0127] seem to contract para. [0128] in that para. [0123]-[0127] describe the measurement of heat flow between an anode active material and an electrolyte composition and para. [0128] describes a heat flow rate between the cathode active material and an electrolyte composition.
(B) The nature of the invention: The subject matter disclosed, a lithium metal oxide-based anode material, seems to be an uncommon anode active composition for a secondary battery that is discharging. Commonly, such “NCM-based compounds” as defined in para. [0005] of the specification are used in cathode active materials for secondary batteries. Furthermore, the carbon-based and silicon-based electrode active materials described in para. [0091] – [0096] are typically used as anode active materials in a discharging secondary battery. It does not appear that Applicant discloses why a common cathode active material has been selected as an anode active material and vice versa for the present invention.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art disclosed in para. [0005] of the present specification also appears to contradict the stated use of and NCM-based compound as an anode active material. Korean Patent Laid-Open Publication No. 10-2018-0116564 (Yim KR 2018/0116564 A) describes a lithium secondary battery (para. [0001]) with an NCM-based cathode material (para. [0031]) and Korean Patent Laid-Open Publication No. 10-2144056 (Seo KR 102144056 B1) also describes a positive electrode material which is NCM oxide-based, or includes nickel, cobalt, and manganese in its composition (para. [0073]). Furthermore, Seo describes a negative electrode material which may be any known anode active material in the art, including a carbon and Si-based anode material (para. [0142] – [0147]). Para. [0005] states that “[…] high capacity in the secondary batteries has been achieved by using, as an anode active material, a layered lithium nickel metal oxide […] herein referred to as ‘NCM-based compounds’ […]” which seems to contradict the NCM-based compounds being used as cathode active materials in the prior art presented.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been familiar with the use of an NCM-based compound as a cathode active material in a discharging secondary battery and hence familiar with the disclosed subject matter, an NCM-based electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely require further explanation in the disclosure to justify the use of an NCM-based compound as an anode active material.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: It is difficult to assess the degree of predictability for the performance of an NCM-based anode active material using prior art available at the time of the effective filing date of the disclosed invention. Park (WO 2021/040392 A1) presents a lithium secondary battery with a cathode composition nearly identical to the anode NCM-based composition disclosed (see Formula 3 on page 8). Ji (2022/0131193 A1) discloses an energy storage device comprising a first and second electrode where one of the first and second electrodes is a Si-based electrode (abstract) and the other is a cathode consisting of NCM811 (para. [0021]). Ji exemplifies a typical arrangement, i.e. an NCM-based cathode, a Si-based anode, and a separator between the two (para. [0020]). Therefore, without additional guidance by Applicant in the specification, the opposite arrangement, i.e. an NCM anode and Si-based cathode, is unexpected and unpredictable in view of the prior art.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor does not appear to connect the core inventive concept, i.e. controlling the heat flow rate between the electrolyte composition and electrode materials, with the unconventional choice of electrode active materials in view of the prior art at any point in the disclosure. Furthermore, the contradictions in the disclosure described above for factor “A” make it difficult to conclude whether or not the anode active materials disclosed are not meant to be the cathode active materials and vice versa.
(G) The existence of working examples: The working examples provided in the specification appear to be contradictory, for example in para. [0123] - [0127] of the present specification, a thermal runaway test involving the measurement of heat flow rate between the NCM-based anode active material and electrolyte composition are described. However, para. [0128] of the specification seems to be directed towards heat flow measurement between the electrolyte composition and an NCM-based cathode active material. Therefore, the working examples do conclusively support the use of an NCM-based anode active material as claimed.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content: Undue quantity of experimentation is needed to make or use the invention as claimed in the absence of supporting prior art, working examples, or disclosed inventive contribution highlighting the use of an NCM-based anode active material and carbon or Si-based cathode active material. It is noted that it is the Examiner’s position that a simple reversal of nomenclature between anode and cathode resulting from the comparison of charging vs. discharging in a secondary electrochemical cell does not amount to an inventive contribution.
In weighing the above stated factors, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation is
required to determine whether the anode and cathode active material compositions claimed are suitable to be used as anode and cathode active materials in a discharging secondary battery given the contradictions in the present disclosure and difference between the prior art and the present disclosure which do not appear to have been addressed by Applicant. Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term “undue experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.”).
scope of the claims are not enabled by Applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 2-13, which depend on claim 1, and claims 15-20, which depend on claim 14, are similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 8-10, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 is recited in line 3 of claim 2. However, it is not clear whether Applicant had intended to recite the species LiNi0.9Co0.06Mn0.04O2 instead. Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, appears to list species of the lithium metal oxide active anode material represented by Formula 1 of claim 1. Furthermore, the sum of the subscripts y+z+w+v = 1 according to line 12 of claim 1 and 0≤z≤0.2 and 0≤w≤0.2 according to line 11 of claim 1. Therefore, the species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 falls outside the bounds of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation "[…] provided that as least one hydrogen atom contained in the […] cycloalkyl group, [-(-OCH2CH2-)n-] […]" in lines 13-14 of claim 8. It is unclear whether or not this limitation is directed towards the cycloalkyl group recited in line 9 of claim 8 and the [-(-OCH2CH2-)n-] structure recited in line 9 of claim 8. The limitation of lines 13-14 of claim 8 seem to be directed towards the limitations recited in lines 11-12 relating to R3 being a fluoro group. Therefore, it is also unclear whether the alkyl group and alkoxy group recited in lines 13-14 refer to the alkyl and alkoxy group recited in lines 11-12 or in lines 8-9 of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation "[…] wherein the electrolyte additive represented by Formula 3 […]" in line 2 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that Applicant intended claim 9 to depend on claim 8 which recites Formula 3. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 has been treated to depend on claim 8 rather than claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 is recited in line 2 of claim 15. However, it is not clear whether Applicant had intended to recite the species LiNi0.9Co0.06Mn0.04O2 instead. Claim 15, which depends on claim 14, appears to list species of the lithium metal oxide active anode material represented by Formula 1 of claim 14. Furthermore, the sum of the subscripts y+z+w+v = 1 according to line 12 of claim 14 and 0≤z≤0.2 and 0≤w≤0.2 according to line 11 of claim 14. Therefore, the species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 falls outside the bounds of claim 1.
Claim 10, which depends on claim 8, is similarly rejected.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 is recited in line 3 of claim 2. Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, appears to list species of the lithium metal oxide active anode material represented by Formula 1 of claim 1. Furthermore, the sum of the subscripts y+z+w+v = 1 according to line 12 of claim 1. Therefore, the species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 falls outside the bounds of claim 1 and broadens beyond the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, various species of cyclic ester-based compounds are recited. Two species, methyl dihydrofuranone and propyl tetrahydropyranone, broaden the scope of claim 1 on which claim 3 depends. In claim 1, the cyclic-ester solvent represented by formula 2 cannot have alkyl branches.
Regarding claim 15, species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 is recited in line 2 of claim 15. Claim 15, which depends on claim 14, appears to list species of the lithium metal oxide active anode material represented by Formula 1 of claim 14. Furthermore, the sum of the subscripts y+z+w+v = 1 according to line 12 of claim 14. Therefore, the species LiNi0.9Co0.6Mn0.4O2 falls outside the bounds of claim 1 and broadens the scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, various species of cyclic ester-based compounds are recited. Two species, methyl dihydrofuranone and propyl tetrahydropyranone, broaden the scope of claim 14 on which claim 16 depends. In claim 14, the cyclic-ester solvent represented by formula 2 cannot have alkyl branches.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claims 1-7, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2021/040392 A1) as evidenced by Datasheet: Gamma-Butyrolactone by Millipore Sigma.
On the basis of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) described above, the claimed anode and anode active material have been interpreted to be the cathode and cathode active material respectively for the purposes of continued examination. Furthermore, the claimed cathode and cathode active material have been interpreted to be the anode and anode active material respectively for the purposes of continued examination.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a secondary battery (title) comprising an electrode assembly including an anode (4th to last paragraph, page 9), a cathode (3rd to last paragraph, page 7), and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (2nd paragraph, page 11). Park further discloses an electrolyte composition with which the electrode assembly is impregnated, comprising a lithium salt and a non-aqueous organic solvent (3rd to last paragraph, page 2). Furthermore, the cathode active material (3rd to last paragraph, page 7) is on one side of a cathode current collector (4th paragraph, page 9). Park also discloses a cathode active material according to the formula Lix[NiyCoz-MnwM1v]O2 where M1 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo; and x, y, z, w, and v satisfy 0.8≤x≤1.20, 0.6≤y≤0.98, 0.01≤z≤0.4, 0.01≤w≤0.4, and 0≤v≤0.1, respectively. (1st through 8th paragraph, page 8). Furthermore, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2- is provided as an example, which anticipates the claimed range (10th paragraph, page 8). Park also discloses an electrolyte composition containing a lithium salt and a non-aqueous organic solvent (last paragraph, page 1). The non-aqueous organic solvent contains a cyclic ester-based organic solvent such as butyrolactone (3rd full paragraph, page 4), which structure satisfies the limitations of equation 2 as evidenced by Datasheet: Gamma-Butyrolactone by Millipore Sigma, in an amount of 95 parts by weight or less of the non-aqueous solvent, overlapping the claimed range of 60wt% or more of cyclic ester-based solvent (4th full paragraph, page 4). MPEP 2144.05. Although Park does not report the heat flow of a 1:1 weight ratio of the cathode active material and electrolyte composition, the similarity of the claimed cathode active material and electrolyte composition to that disclosed by Park presents a case of prima facie obviousness on the basis of inherency. Because Park presents the same formula for the cathode active material composition with an overlapping range for the subscripts x, y, z, w, and v to the claimed range as well as a non-aqueous solvent butyrolactone with a compositional range overlapping that claimed, the composition disclosed by Park can be said to be substantially identical to the claimed composition. In cases of prima facie obviousness, the burden of proof shifts to Applicant that Park’s disclosed composition would not be expected to have the same property as claimed in the present application, a heat flow as measured by a heat flow measurement of 6.0 W/g or less within a range of 200 °C to 300 °C for a mixture containing a 1:1 weight ratio of the anode active material in a 100% charged state and the electrolyte composition claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2- as an example of the cathode active material (10th paragraph, page 8).
Regarding claim 3, the non-aqueous solvent may be butyrolactone (3rd full paragraph, page 4) which is chemically identical to dihydrofuranone as evidenced by Datasheet: Gamma-Butyrolactone by Millipore Sigma. The structure dihydrofuranone is depicted in para. [0048] of the specification of the present application, which is identical to butyrolactone.
Regarding claim 4, the lithium salt contains Li+ as a cation (last paragraph, page 2) and may contain PF6- (2nd to last paragraph, page 2).
Regarding claim 5, the lithium salt contains Li+ as a cation (last paragraph, page 2) and may contain BF2C2O4- (2nd to last paragraph, page 2).
Regarding claim 6, the lithium salt contains Li+ as a cation (last paragraph, page 2) and may include PF6- and SbF6- (2nd to last paragraph, page 2).
Regarding claim 7, the non-aqueous solvent further includes a fluorine-based organic co-solvent (3rd full paragraph, page 3) including fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (4th full paragraph, page 3) which is a fluorinated cyclic carbonate-based solvent.
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses an anode (4th to last paragraph, page 9) with a carbon-based negative electrode active material (3rd to last paragraph, page 9) provided on one side of the anode current collector (2nd to last paragraph, page 10). The anode active material may also be a silicon-based anode active material (1st paragraph, page 10). Furthermore, the carbon-based anode active material may be graphite (last paragraph, page 9).
Regarding claim 12, the silicon-based anode active material may be SiC (1st paragraph, page 10).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses a method of preparing a secondary battery (title) comprising preparing an electrode assembly including an anode (4th to last paragraph, page 9), a cathode (3rd to last paragraph, page 7), and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (2nd paragraph, page 11). Park further discloses impregnating an electrode assembly with an electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt and a non-aqueous organic solvent (3rd to last paragraph, page 2). Furthermore, the cathode active material (3rd to last paragraph, page 7) is provided on one side of a cathode current collector (4th paragraph, page 9). Park also discloses providing a cathode active material according to the formula Lix[NiyCoz-MnwM1v]O2 where M1 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo; and x, y, z, w, and v satisfy 0.8≤x≤1.20, 0.6≤y≤0.98, 0.01≤z≤0.4, 0.01≤w≤0.4, and 0≤v≤0.1, respectively. (1st through 8th paragraph, page 8). Furthermore, LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2- is provided as an example, which anticipates the claimed range (10th paragraph, page 8). Park also discloses an electrolyte composition containing a lithium salt and a non-aqueous organic solvent (last paragraph, page 1). The non-aqueous organic solvent contains a cyclic ester-based organic solvent such as butyrolactone (3rd full paragraph, page 4), which structure satisfies the limitations of equation 2 as evidenced by Datasheet: Gamma-Butyrolactone by Millipore Sigma, in an amount of 95 parts by weight or less of the non-aqueous solvent, overlapping the claimed range of 60wt% or more of cyclic ester-based solvent (4th full paragraph, page 4). MPEP 2144.05. Although Park does not report the heat flow of a 1:1 weight ratio of the cathode active material and electrolyte composition, the similarity of the claimed cathode active material and electrolyte composition to that disclosed by Park presents a case of prima facie obviousness on the basis of inherency. Because Park presents the same formula for the cathode active material composition with an overlapping range for the subscripts x, y, z, w, and v to the claimed range as well as a non-aqueous solvent butyrolactone with a compositional range overlapping that claimed, the composition disclosed by Park can be said to be substantially identical to the claimed composition. In cases of prima facie obviousness, the burden of proof shifts to Applicant that Park’s disclosed composition would not be expected to have the same property as claimed in the present application, a heat flow as measured by a heat flow measurement of 6.0 W/g or less within a range of 200 °C to 300 °C for a mixture containing a 1:1 weight ratio of the anode active material in a 100% charged state and the electrolyte composition claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2- as an example of the cathode active material (10th paragraph, page 8).
Regarding claim 16, the non-aqueous solvent may be butyrolactone (3rd full paragraph, page 4) which is chemically identical to dihydrofuranone as evidenced by Datasheet: Gamma-Butyrolactone by Millipore Sigma. The structure dihydrofuranone is depicted in para. [0048] of the specification of the present application, which is identical to butyrolactone.
Regarding claim 17, the lithium salt contains Li+ as a cation (last paragraph, page 2) and may contain PF6- (2nd to last paragraph, page 2).
Regarding claim 18, the lithium salt contains Li+ as a cation (last paragraph, page 2) and may contain BF2C2O4- (2nd to last paragraph, page 2).
Regarding claim 19, the lithium salt contains Li+ as a cation (last paragraph, page 2) and may include PF6- and SbF6- (2nd to last paragraph, page 2).
Regarding claim 20, the non-aqueous solvent further includes a fluorine-based organic co-solvent (3rd full paragraph, page 3) including fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (4th full paragraph, page 3) which is a fluorinated cyclic carbonate-based solvent.
16. Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2021/040392 A1) in view of Ji (US PG Pub 2022/0131193 A1) as evidenced by Datasheet: Lithium 4-vinyl-N-(trifluoromethane)sulfonylbenzene-1-sulfonamide by Apollo Scientific.
Park is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 8-9, Park fails to teach an electrolyte composition according to Formula 3 as claimed in claim 8 or according to structures 1 through 17 as claimed in claim 9.
Ji teaches an energy storage device comprising asymmetrical alkylsulfonyl imide electrolyte additives (abstract) including lithium 4-vinyl-N-(trifluoromethane)sulfonylbenzene-1-sulfonamide (para. [0088]), which is identical to structure formula 15 of claim 9 and meeting the limitations of formula 3 in claim 8 as evidenced by Datasheet: Lithium 4-vinyl-N-(trifluoromethane)sulfonylbenzene-1-sulfonamide by Apollo Scientific.
Furthermore, Ji further teaches that the use of a functionalized film-forming electrolyte additive is a suitable alternative to using a surface coating to develop a cathode-electrolyte interface (CEI) to suppress electrolyte decomposition in high-capacity electrodes (para. [0026]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the asymmetrical alkylsulfonyl imide electrolyte additives such as lithium 4-vinyl-N-(trifluoromethane)sulfonylbenzene-1-sulfonamide to suppress electrolyte decomposition in the battery of Park.
Regarding claim 10, Ji also teaches that the asymmetrical alkylsulfonyl imide electrolyte additive may be included in the electrolyte at 5 weight% or less (para. [0073]).
Furthermore, Ji teaches that only small amounts of film-forming electrolyte additives are needed to prevent capacity loss (para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a minimal amount of the asymmetrical alkylsulfonyl imide electrolyte additive in the battery of Park to achieve the benefit of reduced capacity loss.
Regarding claim 13, Ji teaches that the silicon-based anode active material can be from about 0% to 35% by weight of silicon (para. [0056]).
Ji also teaches that silicon can swell in excess of 300% upon lithium insertion, and should be allowed to expand while maintaining electrical contact with the silicon particles (para. [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have limited the amount of silicon in the anode active material to prevent excess volume expansion.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Takezawa (US Patent 8,039,148 B2) discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte for a secondary battery (abstract) with a positive electrode active material including LiNi0.85Co0.15O2 (Col. 10, Ln. 20) and furanone as the non-aqueous solvent in the electrolyte (Col. 8, Ln. 22).
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.A.M./
Nathan A McMullen
Examiner, Art Unit 1788
08/07/26
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights